D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
Much like planning for the future isn't enough to suggest someone was not suicidal.
I'm not cheering for the defence by any means, but we all know well enough, I'm sure, that a great deal of suicides come as a surprise to those close to the person who died by their own hand. I don't think the future planning with the company and the woman is a strong enough argument to prove his will to live. Suicidal tendencies are often well-masked by normal, day to day lives.
Juxtaposed all the other evidence against DM it certainly is somewhat compelling, but on its own I find that argument rather weak.
I'm anxious to see this all tied together by the Crown.
I don't know if I can express my thoughts in English well enough:
It seems, LE has not taken all the necessary examinations and measures that would have been necessary when they appeared in WM's bedroom. DM / MB spoke of depression and alcoholism and that was enough for LE to assume suicide rather than murder. You could accuse LE of mistakes and sloppiness. If now the defendant is acquitted for lack of clear evidence, the negligence and misjudgment of LE automatically diminishes in the eyes of the public.
Is that how it is and are all parties satisfied at the end?